State of H.P. vs Pushpa Sood

Surinder Singh, J.—The State has challenged the acquittal of the Respondent u/s 186 of the Indian Penal Code allegedly causing obstruction in the official discharge of duty to Naib Tehsildar PW-1 Yoginder Sen.

In short, the prosecution case is that on 20th March, 2008 when PW-1 Naib Tehsildar Yoginder Sen present in the office, Respondent along with her husband came there and asked to attest the mutation. On this, he told the Respondent that first it has to be attested by the field Kanungo and thereafter he would do the needful within 10/15 minutes. On this, Respondent is alleged to have started misbehaving and hitting the table which caused obstruction in the official discharge of the duties. A complaint Ext.PW-1/A in writing was made by the Naib Tehsildar to the Deputy Commissioner, which was forwarded to the S.H.O. concerned. S.H.O. collected the record and recorded the statement of one Naresh Kumar and filed the complaint through ASI Ram Chand, Police Station, Dharampur, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli on 2nd April, 2008.

The learned trial Court wrongly took the cognizance on the basis of said complaint which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the learned trial Court could not have taken the cognizance of the complaint at the behest of the police, as it provides that it could only take cognizance on a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

In the instant case, the complainant Naib Tehsildar is not administratively subordinate to ASI of the police, therefore, cognizance by the learned Magistrate is debarred. Further, there is a sharp contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. PW-4 Naresh Kumar categorically stated that no obstruction was caused to the Naib Tehsildar from discharging his duties and further stated that on the alleged incident the Naib Tehsildar was not in the office and came very late, i.e., around 5.30 PM. The perusal of the complaint Ext.PW-1/A also does not make any reference about the fact as to how the said Officer was deterred in discharge of official duty. Respondent had also made complaint to the Deputy Commissioner with respect to the same incident, but no action was taken on her complaint.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, leave to appeal cannot be granted. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.